memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion
Frankenstein Fleet Frankenstein Fleet No canon references to the term, and the article includes speculation from the Deep Space Nine Tech Manual in claiming that these ships were hastily 'kitbashed' for the War. There is no canon evidence to support that notion. We simply don't know anything about these ship types. -- Harry 13:49, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' - I never thought this belonged... Logan 5 14:50, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC) * Delete or maybe merge with kitbash (or does that not belong either?) --FuturamaGuy 16:38, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC) * Delete --From Andoria with Love 05:47, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC) ** Deleted after five days. --From Andoria with Love 16:37, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) Federation-Talarian Conflict ;Federation-Talarian Conflict: * I cannot believe that this is the "official" title of the conflict-- besides it more or less just duplicates (in less detail) what is more concisely descibed in Galen border conflicts. In fact, I think a comment on the talk page, by EtaPiscium, says it all: "The episode "Suddenly Human" makes no reference to any conflict other than the "Galen border conflicts", which it states lasted three years. There is no evidence the Federation-Talarian conflict went beyond that." --FuturamaGuy 18:05, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC) : Delete. -- Harry 10:24, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Delete - Logan 5 21:49, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) :If it really is the case, then we don't need a seperate article. However, this article has been in existance for over one year, and its title seems to be an accurate description of the event (conflict between Federation and Talarians), so I vote to Redirect instead of completely deleting it. -- Cid Highwind 21:56, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Delete. The Galen border conflicts were the sole and only conflicts cited in reference to the Talarians. This article otherwise duplicates information referenced in the appropriate article.--Fenian 23:05, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Delete. --From Andoria with Love 05:38, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC) * Deleted --Alan del Beccio 12:03, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) Federation-Dominion Alliance ;Federation-Dominion Alliance: Not canon. --FuturamaGuy 22:09, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) *Yes it is. I vote to Keep. -167.128.89.127 22:33, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) *I vote to Keep. -Weyoun 47 22:36, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Delete', non-canon. -- Cid Highwind 22:45, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. This is not only non-canon, but also no logical conclusion one could reach from canon sources. --Fenian 22:58, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Immediate delete and block'. It's obvious that this is the same person who was stirring trouble up before. He's trying to find gray areas where it's quasi-vandalistic but legit enough to cause trouble. Weyoun 23:09, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Delete' quick, fast and in a hurry. --From Andoria with Love 05:35, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. The Federation and the Dominion signed a peace treaty, not an alliance... :S Ottens 12:13, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC) *I will not stand for these... UNJUST accusations!!! I merely wished to contribute to your impressive database. After all, if there could be a Federation-Klingon alliance, a Federation-Romulan alliance, even a Federation-Cardassian alliance, why not one between the Federation and the Dominion? there is a reference to such an event in Endgame. May you have the blessing of the Founders. -Weyoun 47 16:53, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) * Deleted --Alan del Beccio 12:03, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) Valdore Class ;Valdore Class: was copied from Valdore type, then edited (including speculation, meta-information etc.). The proper title is Valdore type, so this one should be deleted. -- Cid Highwind 17:19, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC) *Agreed. Delete. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 17:22, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Delete', User:Ocampa Kid has been warned a number of times and reverts edits to his own versions. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 02:22, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'.--Fenian 18:13, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. --From Andoria with Love 04:57, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) Billy Parrish ;Billy Parrish : I can understand having articles for production staff such as writers, directors, producers, and composers, but I don't think we need to start creating articles for other background personnel. Parrish was a prop master on Star Trek: Insurrection, and I just don't see the need to keep this page based on that... unless we can create articles for every single person who ever worked on a Star Trek production, and that would get way out of hand. --From Andoria with Love 09:18, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Delete', uless he made a considerable contribution to the look of Star Trek. In its current form, however, the article doesn't suggest that. Ottens 12:14, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Comment'; Forgive my ignorance or film production, but as a prop master was he in charge of creating the Son'a/Ba'ku technology and objects, or just keeping and maintaining them for production?--Tim Thomason 19:12, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC) ** Actually, since he was only an assistant prop master, he probably only maintained some of the props during the production, although he may have had a role in their construction as well. The senior prop master (in the case of Insurrection, that was Bill MacSems) is the one responsible for buying or, if need be, building the props to be used by the actors on the set and for keeping track of them (this includes the Son'a and Ba'ku items as well, such as the Son'a weapons or that little "happy sack" the Ba'ku kids were kicking around). Assistant prop masters, of course, assist in these matters (and may actually do a bit of the work in some situations), but the prop master is the one calling the shots in order to create the style of device required by the director, the set designer, or the cinematographer. I hope that answers your question. :) --From Andoria with Love 05:21, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) * Keep: He is a member of the production staff, he (most likely) received on-screen credit for his "work" with Star Trek, therefore he has earned his place on Memory Alpha. --FuturamaGuy 03:37, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) ** So you're saying we can creates articles for the thousands upon thousands of other people who have worked on Trek, i.e. the gaffers, the grips, the wardrobe people, the medics, the dialogue coaches, the location managers, the cooks, the costumers, the make-up artists, the thousands of special effects and visual effects artists, the camera operators, the lighting and sound technicians, the prop masters, the assistant directors, the set decorators, the hair stylists, the scenic artists, the sound and music editors, and everybody else? I think that would be going a bit overboard, wouldn't it? --From Andoria with Love 05:21, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) ***'Comment'. Lucille Ball. --Broik 05:27, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) ****Hmm, you know, that about hits it on the head. ;) Regarding Parrish-- he worked directly with the production of the show -- I'm not so sure the medics, caterers or janitors count, but those who contributed to the actual production of the series deserve just as much credit for their work as the actors and writers do-- be it someone who makes the props, sews the uniforms or paint the walls of the ready room. If we see it on TV and they did it then it seems legit to me, and I gather that is what the other supporters are gettin gat as well. --Alan del Beccio 05:51, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) *Perhaps the solution is to categorize them by their jobs and then turn them into lists, rather then giving each of them their own article pages. Jaf 13:53, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)Jaf **Hey, if nobody else has a problem with the article being here, then neither do I. I added it here because I felt it was unneeded and that it would mean we could create articles for the hundreds of people involved in the production of Trek, which I thought would be a bit excessive. I, personally, don't have a problem with it; I just thought the community would see the same potential problem I saw. But if nobody else sees much of problem, then the article should stay. --From Andoria with Love 14:58, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) Q-created reality Because of the below statement, I figured I would post this here. I'm not sure I was ever fond of the article either. Especially since no one actually did anything with it, leaving it as it is in its current state rather meaningless. What is not to say that "Q's created realities" were not "real" in the first place? --Alan del Beccio 04:29, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) ---- :*Doesn't Q-created reality fit into this (plot type) group as well? --FuturamaGuy 07:02, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::*In my opinion, no. That page is about "realities" experienced by the crew, while the others are dubious meta-classifications (does every episode containing a first contact have a "first contact plot"?). If you want to discuss the possible deletion of that page, please create another section here. -- Cid Highwind 10:07, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) ---- :I think a "List of places created-by / recreated-by / visited-with-the-help-of Q" would be a very valid list article. This article is currently "meaningless" because a list consisting of links with invalid names was removed without being replaced by a list of "correct" links: for example Sherwood Forest, Afterlife (don't we already have a list of various "afterlifes" somewhere?), the planet Q created in Hide and Q, the various representations of the Continuum itself, the Big Bang, the post-atomic horrors courtroom, Starbase Earhart and so on... Instead of simply deleting this article, we should instead discuss a better suiting title and then move. -- Cid Highwind 15:56, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) Pion ;Pion: Non-Trek content; not cited; no pages link to it that might indicate a Trek source. --Alan del Beccio 08:45, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) :I'm not aware of any Trek source, either. Unless someone can provide one, delete (and make sure to remove any links to that page first). -- Cid Highwind 15:57, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. --From Andoria with Love 16:30, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) Kahless (novel) This page is one of the shortest on MA. It is comprised of mostly giberish, and doesn't even talk about the novel. (If it even exists. I don't think it does.) Tobyk777 02:30, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) :No, it definetly exists, and I have it. It needs formatting though. --Starchild 02:43, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) * Somehow this nomination doesn't surprise me. Toby, do you know what an ISBN is and did you notice that that so-called "gibberish" is one? --Alan del Beccio 02:52, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Keep, but requires a definite rehaul. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 13:21, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) Electro-Mechanical ;Electro-Mechanical: Not cited, nor does it appear to have any links that would produce a valid source. --Alan del Beccio 11:25, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) Tidal locking ;Tidal locking: This should be a link to Wikipedia, not a Memory Alpha article. There are no Trek-references made to this phenomenon, nor are any cited. --Alan del Beccio 12:15, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Definitely keep. The article already mentions Remus (ST:Nemesis) and Dytallix B (TNG:Conspiracy) as examples of tidally locked planets, and we could also add Daled IV (TNG:The Dauphin) to that list. If those aren't Trek-references to this, I don't know what is... -- Cid Highwind 13:06, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::So you are saying implied references to a term are cause for keeping an article? If this is true, then we should undelete Hawaii and all the other implied references we've voted to delete in the past. --Alan del Beccio 13:08, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) :I don't know in which context Hawaii was first created and whether or not that constituted an implied reference (which, I guess, is supposed to mean that something from Hawaii was mentioned while Hawaii itself was not), but this one is different from that example. It's the name of an existing astronomical phenomenon that was used (several times!) for story-telling purposes. Should we move that page to List of planets orbiting as fast as rotating just because the phrase "tidally locked" was not used to refer to the phenomenon on-screen? I think we should use some common sense here. -- Cid Highwind 13:29, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Keep, it was definitely referred to regarding Remus so I think that validates the Trek reference. Logan 5 16:47, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) Melee weapon ;Melee weapon: Not sure what this is about, but it isn't cited, nor does it really seem appropriate here. --Alan del Beccio 12:17, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Delete': Dispite melee weapons being those that are hand controlled (Like the Bat'leth, to my present knowledge), there is no mention of 'melee weapons' in general. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 13:18, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) *Wasn't this already deleted before? Anyway, delete. --From Andoria with Love 19:35, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) Field reader tube ;Field reader tube: Uncited, no links to it seem to indicate a source either, nor do I recall any references to this. --Alan del Beccio 12:23, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::Some research? How about this? :::Okay... so, that's supposed to be an official source? I don't think so. What we need is a movie or episode that references this particular item. There are no valid sources listed, so therefore I must vote delete. --From Andoria with Love 19:37, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) :I think I've seen the prop from above in a TOS episode, but I can't remember which one. So keep for now. --Memory 20:30, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. Weyoun 05:00, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC) Defense sail ;Defense sail: Not cited, nor do I recall this term ever being used on DS9 to descibe what it is this article is attempting to descibe. If anything, this should just be incorporated into the design of Deep Space 9. --Alan del Beccio 12:25, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) ::As far as I know, they were just called pylons. Delete or move to pylons (if that is the official term). --From Andoria with Love 19:39, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Delete'. Nope... Unless it's a really obscure alternate-name kind of reference or something that came from the technical manual. Weyoun 04:58, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC) Heisenberg uncertainty principle ;Heisenberg uncertainty principle: This appears to be a suppliment to Heisenberg compensator, but doesnt appear to have ever been references in Trek. --Alan del Beccio 12:28, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) *Move to the background of Heisenberg compensator. Jaf 13:56, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)Jaf *Yeah, I think it's best to move it as background info as well, although the info might need to be slimmed down a bit. --From Andoria with Love 19:41, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) Loreva ;Loreva : The article is good, but the name is admittedly non-canon. I've moved the appropriate info to Mirror universe people#Klingon Guard at Terok Nor which is where it belongs.--Tim Thomason 18:18, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC) *Agreed, and since the info is now where it belongs, we can now delete this article. --From Andoria with Love 19:37, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC) Jeetaka ;Jeetaka: I know it came from "Sanctuary" so that's not the issue, but I think this belongs on a page about the language or culture it came from. Unlike Wookieepedia, MA doesn't usually create these kinds of pages from what I've seen. Sloan 04:43, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Redirect' to avoid confusion. Weyoun 04:59, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)